What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism · Grady.Miller, owner of Circus Mojo, has completed two programs at Hillcrest Training School. The Springfield Township correctional

What Works and What Doesn’t in

Reducing Recidivism

Presented by:

Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.

School of Criminal Justice

University of Cincinnati

www.uc.edu/criminaljustice

[email protected]

Evidence Based – What does it mean?

There are different forms of evidence:

– The lowest form is anecdotal evidence;

stories, opinions, testimonials, case studies,

etc - but it often makes us feel good

– The highest form is empirical evidence –

research, data, results from controlled

studies, etc. - but sometimes it doesn’t make

us feel good

Evidence Based Practice is:

1.Easier to think of as Evidence Based Decision

Making

2. Involves several steps and encourages the use

of validated tools and treatments.

3. Not just about the tools you have but also how

you use them

Evidence Based Decision Making Requires

1.Assessment information

2.Relevant research

3.Available programming

4.Evaluation

5.Professionalism and knowledge from staff

What does the Research tell us?

There is often a Misapplication of Research: “XXX Study Says”

- the problem is if you believe every study we wouldn’t eat anything (but we would drink a lot of red wine!)

• Looking at one study can be a mistake

• Need to examine a body of research

• So, what does the body of knowledge about correctional interventions tell us?

A Large Body of Research Has

Indicated….….that correctional services and interventions can be

effective in reducing recidivism, however, not all programs are equally effective

• The most effective programs are based on some principles of effective interventions

• Risk (Who)

• Need (What)

• Treatment aka Responsivity (How)

• Program Integrity (How Well)

Let’s Start with the Risk Principle

Risk refers to risk of reoffending and

not the seriousness of the offense.

Seriousness usually trumps risk.

Risk Principle

As a general rule treatment effects are stronger if

we target higher risk individuals, and harm can be

done to low risk

Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community

Supervision Sample

9.1

34.3

58.9

69.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Very High Risk

Pe

rce

nt

wit

h N

ew A

rre

st

Low 0-14 Medium = 15-23 High = 24-33 Very High 34+

There are Three Elements to the

Risk Principle

1. Target those with higher probability of recidivism

2. Provide most intensive treatment to higher risk

3. Intensive treatment for lower risk can increase recidivism

#1: Targeting Higher Risk

• It is important to understand that even with

EBP there will be failures.

• Even if you reduce recidivism rates you

will still have high percentage of failures

Example of Targeting Higher Risk

• If you have 100 High risk individuals

about 60% will fail

• If you put them in well designed EBP for

sufficient duration you may reduce

failure rate to 40%

• If you have 100 low risk individuals

about 10% will fail

• If you put them in same program failure

rate will be 20%

Targeting Higher Risk continued:

• In the end, who had the lower recidivism

rate?

• Mistake we make is comparing high risk

to low risk rather than look for treatment

effects

#2: Provide Most Intensive

Interventions to Higher Risk

The question is: What does more

“intensive” treatment mean in practice?

• Most studies show that the longer

someone is in treatment the great the

effects, however:

• Effects tend to diminish if treatment goes

too long

Results from a 2010 Study (Latessa,

Sperber, and Makarios) of 689 Adult Males

• 100-bed secure residential facility for adult male felons

• Cognitive-behavioral treatment modality

• Average age 33

• 60% single, never married

• 43% less than high school education

• 80% moderate risk or higher

• 88% have probability of substance abuse per SASSI

2010 Dosage Study of 689 Adult Males

Sperber,, Latessa & Makarios (2013). Examining the Interaction between Level of Risk and Dosage of

Treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(3).

Results from 2014 Study

• We expanded sample

• Hours examined by increments of 50

• Looked at low/moderate, moderate, and

high

2014 Dosage Study involving 903 Adult Males

Makarios, Sperber, & Latessa (2014). Treatment Dosage and the Risk Principle: A Refinement and Extension. Journal

of Offender Rehabilitation. 53:334-350.

Results from 2013 Ohio Study of over 10,000 Youth:

Recidivism Rates by Total Months in Programs

Latessa, Lovins, and Lux (2013). Evaluation of Ohio’s RECLAIM Programs. Center for Criminal Justice Research,

University of Cincinnati.

Findings from Ohio Study

• Recidivism rates for low risk youth served in the

community were 2 to 4 times lower than those served

in Residential or Institutional facilities

• We also found that placing low risk youth in

Substance Abuse programs significantly

increased their recidivism rates.

• High risk youth were more successful when they

received a higher dosage of treatment (programming

for 13 months or more).

• Lower and moderate risk youth did better with lower

dosage programs.

Provide Most Intensive Interventions to

Higher Risk

• Higher risk individuals will require much

higher dosage of treatment

– Rule of thumb: 100-150 hours for moderate risk

– 200+ hours for high risk

– 100 hours for high risk will have little effect

– Does not include work/school and other

activities that are not directly addressing

criminogenic risk factors

#3: Intensive Treatment for Low Risk will

Often Increase Failure Rates

• Low risk will often learn anti social

behavior from higher risk

• Disrupts pro-social networks

• Increased reporting/surveillance leads to

more violations/revocations

Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

High Risk 31.6 51.1

Low Risk 32.3 14.5

Treatment Non-Treatment

Bonta, J et al., 2000. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3:312-329. Criminal Justice and

Behavior

Recidivism

Rates

STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL

PROGRAMS IN OHIO

• Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done up to that time.

• Total of 13,221 offenders – 37 Halfway Houses and 15 Community Based Correctional Facilities were included in the study.

• Two-year follow-up conducted on all offenders

• Recidivism measures included new arrests & incarceration in a state penal institution

Lowenkamp, C. T. & Latessa, E. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Based Correctional Facilities and Halfway House Programs. Cincinnati,

Ohio: Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati.

Increased

Recidivism

Reduced

Recidivism

Treatment Effects For High Risk Offenders

-34

-18

-15 -14

-6 -5

-2 -2

2 3 3 35 6 7 8 8 9 10 10

12 12 12 13 13 1315

21 2224 25

27

3032

34

River C

ity

Fresh Start

Alternative A

gency

Talbert House C

ornerstone

Com

munity A

ssessment Program

(Men’s)

Monday

WO

RTH

Cincinnati V

OA

McM

ahon Hall

Talbert House Spring G

rove

NEO

CA

P

Oriana H

ouse RIP

Alvis H

ouse Dunning H

all

Lorain/Medina

All C

BCF Facilities

Canton C

omm

unity Treatment C

enter

Lucas County

SRCCC

All Facilities

Licking/Muskingum

Summ

it County

Butler

SEPTA

Com

munity Transitions

Franklin County

Small Program

s

Oriana H

ouse TMRC

Cincinnati V

OA

Chem

ical Dependency Program

Alvis H

ouse Alum

Creek

Talbert House B

eekman

Com

p Drug

Harbor Light Salvation A

rmy

Com

munity C

orrections Association

Toledo VO

A

Mahoning C

ounty

EOCC

0

10

20

30

40

-10

-20

-30

-40

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f R

einca

rcer

atio

n

Results from 2013 Ohio Study of over 10,000

Youth: Risk Level by New Felony Adjudication

Latessa, Lovins, and Lux (2013). Evaluation of Ohio’s RECLAIM Programs. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.

To understand the Need Principle we need

to review the body of knowledge related to

risk factors

What are the risk factors correlated with

criminal conduct?

Andrews and Bonta’s Major Set of

Risk/Need Factors1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs & cognitive emotional

states

2. Procriminal associates & isolation from anticriminal others

3. Temperamental and anti social personality patterns conducive to criminal activity including:

➢ Weak socialization

➢ Impulsivity

➢ Adventurous

➢ Restless/aggressive

➢ Egocentrism

➢ A taste for risk

➢ Weak problem-solving/self-regulation & coping skills

4. A history of antisocial behavior

Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

5. Familial factors that include criminality and a variety of

psychological problems in the family of origin including

Low levels of affection, caring, and cohesiveness, poor

parental supervision and discipline and outright neglect

and abuse.

6. Low levels of personal, educational, vocational, or

financial achievement

7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities

8. Substance Abuse

Study by Bucklen and Zajac of parole

violators in Pennsylvania found a

number of criminogenic factors

related to failure*

Bucklen, B., & Zajac, G. (2009). But some of them don’t come back (to prison!): Resource deprivation and thinking errors as determinants of parole success and failure. The Prison Journal. 89: 239–264.

Pennsylvania Parole Study

Social Network and Living Arrangements

Violators Were:

• More likely to hang around with individuals

with criminal backgrounds

• Less likely to live with a spouse

• Less likely to be in a stable supportive

relationship

• Less likely to identify someone in their life

who served in a mentoring capacity

Pennsylvania Parole Study

Employment & Financial Situation

Violators were:

• Less likely to have job stability

• Less likely to be satisfied with employment

• Less likely to take low end jobs and work up

• More likely to have negative attitudes toward employment

& unrealistic job expectations

• Less likely to have a bank account

• More likely to report that they were “barely making it” (yet

success group reported over double median debt)

Pennsylvania Parole Study

Alcohol or Drug Use

Violators were:

• More likely to report use of alcohol or

drugs while on parole (but no difference in

prior assessment of dependency problem)

• Poor management of stress was a primary

contributing factor to relapse

Pennsylvania Parole Study

Life on Parole - Violators were:

• Had poor problem solving or coping skills

• Did not anticipate long term consequences of behavior

• Failed to utilize resources to help themselves

• Acted impulsively to immediate situations

• Felt they were not in control

• More likely to maintain anti-social attitudes

• Viewed violations as an acceptable option to situation

• Maintained general lack of empathy

• Shifted blame or denied responsibility

• Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be like

outside of prison

Pennsylvania Parole Violator

Study:

• Successes and failures did not differ in

difficulty in finding a place to live after

release

• Successes & failures equally likely to

report eventually obtaining a job

Need PrincipleBy assessing and targeting criminogenic needs for change,

agencies can reduce the probability of recidivism

Criminogenic

• Anti social attitudes

• Anti social friends

• Substance abuse

• Lack of empathy

• Impulsive behavior

Non-Criminogenic

• Anxiety

• Low self esteem

• Creative abilities

• Medical needs

• Physical conditioning

The Christopher Columbus Style

of Program Design

WHEN HE SET OUT…

He didn’t know where he was going.

WHEN HE GOT THERE…

He didn’t know where he was.

WHEN HE GOT BACK…

He didn’t know where he had been.

Definitely NOT Criminogenic

Needs

Circus clown trains troubled teensPaul Miller shows them there's life off the street1:10 AM, Aug. 29, 2011 |

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP -- Paul Miller's hands were a blur - toss, catch, toss, catch - keeping three colored balls in the air as eight teens watched, wondering what juggling had to do with their stay at Hamilton County's school for juvenile criminals."We're trying to show them there are things out there besides the streets," said Juvenile Court Judge KarlaGrady.Miller, owner of Circus Mojo, has completed two programs at Hillcrest Training School. The Springfield Township correctional and treatment school is for delinquent males ages 12-18 and too often the last stop before juvenile prison.His Ludlow-based circus arts program teaches students how to juggle, walk on stilts, balance on a giant ball and some tumbling in addition to the real objectives - team building and boosting self-esteem. "It teaches them responsibility, teamwork, respect and commitment. All of that influences their academics and influences their home life," said Debbie Hill, of the nonprofit Community Arts Initiatives, the agency that paid for the$6,000, six-week program at Hillcrest. It's an unusual step, Grady admits, to have a clown teach troubled teens circus skills, but she wanted to get their attention.

DOGSLEDDING AS

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

METHOD –London Free Press – 07/03/11

The Hollow Water First Nation, who live 200 km

northeast of Winnipeg, have used dogsledding

as a restorative justice program, which tries to

restore relationships between victims and

perpetrators in criminal cases. Exercising

wilderness skills was seen as a way of rebuilding

the perpetrator’s self-esteem, explained Marcel

HARDESTY, restorative justice program

director.

Needs Targeted & Correlation with Effect Size for Youthful Offenders

Source: Dowden and Andrews, (1999). What Works in Young Offender Treatment: A Meta Analysis. Forum on Correctional Research. Correctional Services of Canada

Fe

ar o

f Pu

nis

hm

en

t

Bo

nd

An

ti So

cia

l Pe

ers

Ta

rge

t Se

lf-Este

em

Va

gu

e E

mo

tion

al P

rob

lem

s

Re

sp

ect A

nti S

ocia

l Th

inkin

g

Ph

ysic

al A

ctiv

ity

Crim

ino

ge

nic

Ne

ed

s

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.1

-0.2

Effect Size -0.18 -0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.05 -0.03 0.36

Reduced Recidivism

Increased Recidivism

Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-

Analyses

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Target 1-3 more non-

criminogenic needs

Target at least 4-6 more

criminogenic needs

Reduction

in

Recidivism

Increase in

Recidivism

Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited Submission to the International Community

Corrections Association Monograph Series Project

Criminal Thinking and Mental Illness*

Morgan, Fisher, Duan, Mandracchia, and Murray (2010) studied 414 adult

inmates in prison with mental illness (265 males, 149 females) and found:

• 66% had belief systems supportive of criminal life style (based on

Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Scale (PICTS)

• When compare to other offender samples, male offenders with MI

scored similar or higher than non-mentally disordered offenders.

• On Criminal Sentiments Scale-Revised, 85% of men and 72% of

women with MI had antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs –

which was higher than incarcerated sample without MI.

See: Prevalence of Criminal Thinking among State Prison Inmates with Serious Mental Illness. Law and Human Behavior

34:324-336, and Center for Behavioral Health Services Criminal Justice Research Policy Brief, April 2010. Rutgers University.

Conclusion

• Criminal Thinking styles often differentiate

people who commit crimes from those who do

not independent of mental illness

• Incarcerated persons with mental illness are

often mentally ill and criminal

• Needs to be treated as co-occurring problems

Assessment is the engine that drives

effective correctional programs

• Need to meet the risk and need principle

• Reduces bias

• Aids decision making

• Allows you to target dynamic risk factors

and measure change

• Best risk assessment method is the

actuarial (statistical) approach

To Understand Assessment it is

Important to Understand Types of Risk

Factors

Dynamic and Static Factors

• Static Factors are those factors that are related to risk and do not change. Some examples might be number of prior offenses, whether an offender has ever had a drug/alcohol problem.

• Dynamic factors relate to risk and can change. Some examples are whether an offender is currently unemployed or currently has a drug/alcohol problem.

There are two types of dynamic

risk factors• Acute – Can change quickly

• Stable – Take longer to change

According to the American Heart Association, there are a

number of risk factors that increase your chances of a first

heart attack

✓ Family history of heart attacks

✓ Gender (males)

✓ Age (over 50)

✓ Inactive lifestyle

✓ Over weight

✓ High blood pressure

✓ Smoking

✓ High Cholesterol level

Best Assessments include both

Static and Dynamic Factors• Just because we can’t change static

factors doesn’t mean they are not

important

• Dynamic factors are often more difficult to

measure, but they are critical to

developing case plans, prioritizing targets

for change and gauging progress

The Treatment (Responsivity)

Principle• General

– Most people respond to programs that are

based on cognitive behavioral/social learning

theories

• Specific

– People learn differently and have certain

barriers that should be addressed so that they

are more likely to succeed in programs

Responsivity areas can include:

• Motivation to change

• Anxiety/psychopathy

• Levels of psychological development

• Maturity

• Cognitive functioning

• Mental disorders

• Housing

• Transportation

• Gender/Ethnicity/Race

Prioritizing Interventions: What to

Change and Why

• Criminogenic targets – reduce risk for

recidivism

• Non-criminogenic targets: may reduce

barriers but NOT risk

• List three speeches that have changed

your life

• List three people who have changed your

life

Treatment Principle

(general responsivity)

The most effective interventions are behavioral:

• Focus on current factors that influence

behavior

• Action oriented

• Staff follow “core correctional practices”

Results from Meta Analysis:

Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral

0.07

0.29

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Nonbehavioral (N=83) Behavioral (N=41)

Reduced

Recidivism

Andrews, D.A. 1994. An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles,

Department of Psychology, Carleton University. The N refers to the number of studies.

Type of Treatment and Effect Sizes for Youth

Dowden and Andrews (1999), What Works in Young Offender Treatment: A Meta Analysis. Forum on Correctional

Research.

Non-Behavioral Behavioral

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Effect Size 0.04 0.24

Reductions in

Recidivism

Most Effective Behavioral

Models• Structured social learning where new skills

and behaviors are modeled

• Family based approaches that train family

on appropriate techniques

• Cognitive behavioral approaches that

target criminogenic risk factors

Social Learning

Refers to several processes through which

individuals acquire attitudes, behavior, or

knowledge from the persons around them. Both

modeling and instrumental conditioning appear to

play a role in such learning

Some Family Based

Interventions• Designed to train family on behavioral

approaches

– Functional Family Therapy

– Multi-Systemic Therapy

– Teaching Family Model

– Strengthening Families Program

– Common Sense Parenting

– Parenting Wisely

Effectiveness of Family Based Intervention:

Results from Meta Analysis

• 38 primary studies with 53 effect tests

• Average reduction in recidivism= 21%

However, a great deal of variability was present

(-0.17 - +0.83)

Dowden & Andrews, 2003

Mean Effect Sizes: Whether or not the

family intervention adheres to the

principles

The Four Principles of Cognitive

Intervention

1. Thinking affects behavior

2. Antisocial, distorted, unproductive irrational thinking can lead to antisocial and unproductive behavior

3. Thinking can be influenced

4. We can change how we feel and behave by changing what we think

Reasons that CBT is Popular in

Corrections

• Can be done in any setting

• Existing staff can be trained on CBT

• Relatively cheap to deliver

• Wide range of curriculums are available

Some Examples of Cognitive Behavioral

Correctional Curriculums

• Aggression Replacement Training (ART)

• Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment (proprietary)

• Thinking for a Change (non-proprietary)

• UC's Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Offenders Seeking Employment (non-proprietary)

• Changing Offender Lives (Specifically for MDOs – non-proprietary)

• UC’s Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse for adolescents (non-proprietary)

• Moving On (Female Offenders-proprietary)

• UC’s Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Sex Offenders (non-proprietary)

• UC's Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Offenders - A comprehensive curriculum (non-proprietary). Also adaptable for MDOs.

Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for

Offenders by Landenberger & Lipsey

• Reviewed 58 studies:

19 random samples

23 matched samples

16 convenience samples

• Found that on average CBT reduced recidivism by 25%,

but the most effective configurations found more than

50% reductions

Landenberger N., Lipsey, M. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated

with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 1:451–476.

Factors Not significant:

• Setting – residential versus community

• Juvenile versus adult

• Minorities or females

• Brand name of the curriculum

Significant Findings (effects were stronger if):

• Sessions per week (2 or more) - RISK

• Implementation monitored - FIDELITY

• Staff trained on CBT - FIDELITY

• Higher proportion of treatment completers –

SPECIFIC RESPONSIVITY

• Higher risk offenders - RISK

• Higher if CBT is combined with other services -

NEED

Core Correctional Practices

1. Effective Reinforcement

2. Effective Disapproval

3. Effective Use of Authority

4. Quality Interpersonal Relationships

5. Cognitive Restructuring

6. Anti-criminal Modeling

7. Structured Learning/Skill Building

8. Problem Solving Techniques

Core Correctional Practices and Recidivism

Effect

Size

Gendreau (2003). Invited Address. APA Annual Conference. Toronto.

2015 Meta Analysis: Staff Trained in Core

Correctional Practices: Effects on Recidivism

Chadwick, DeWolf and Serin (2015). Effectively Training Community Supervision Officers, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20: 1-13

Fidelity Principle

Making sure the program is delivered as designed and with integrity:

• Ensure staff are modeling appropriate behavior, are qualified, well trained, well supervision, etc.

• Make sure barriers are addressed but target criminogenic needs

• Make sure appropriate dosage of treatment is provided

• Monitor delivery of programs & activities, etc.

• Reassess participants in meeting target behaviors

What Do We Know About Fidelity?

• Is the most difficult principle to sustain

• Fidelity is related to successful outcomes (i.e.,

recidivism reductions). Poor fidelity can lead to

null effects or even iatrogenic effects

• Fidelity cannot be assumed

• Fidelity can be measured and monitored

Effects of Quality Programs Delivery for Evidenced Based Programs for Youth Offenders

Source: Outcome Evaluation of Washington State's Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. January 2004. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Functional Family Therapy Aggression Replacement Therapy

0

10

20

30

40

-10

-20

Competently Delivered 38 24

Not Competent -16.7 -10.4

Reduced Recidivism

Increased Recidivism

What Doesn’t Work?

Lakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead

horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in corrections, and in

other affairs, we often try other strategies, including the following:

• Buy a stronger whip.

• Change riders

• Say things like “This is the way we always have ridden this horse.”

• Appoint a committee to study the horse.

• Arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

• Create a training session to increase our riding ability.

• Harness several dead horses together for increased speed.

• Declare that “No horse is too dead to beat.”

• Provide additional funding to increase the horse’s performance.

• Declare the horse is “better, faster, and cheaper” dead.

• Study alternative uses for dead horses.

• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Ineffective Approaches

• Programs that cannot maintain fidelity

• Programs that target non-criminogenic needs

• Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals

• Shaming techniques

• Drug education programs

• Non-directive, client centered approaches

• Bibliotherapy

• Talking cures

• Self-Help programs

• Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs

• “Punishing smarter” (boot camps, scared straight, etc.)

Some Lessons Learned from the

Research

➢ Who you put in a program is important – pay attention to risk

➢ What you target is important – pay attention to criminogenic needs

➢ How you target offender for change is important –use behavioral approaches

➢ Program Integrity makes a difference - Service

delivery, training/supervision of staff, support for

program, QA, evaluation, etc.